BUSTED! US, UK, back false-flag chemical attack in Syria

Yeah, I don't know about that right there. It could very well have been an official leak, and just to cover their tracks, they bring in the best
Attorneys, using the Billions of profit made by the Military Industrial Complex contractors, spend the big dough on the big lawyers, sue sue sue and
make it go away.

I don't believe it was a forgery/faked.......the timing & the topic in January, compared to US gov now saying there are chemical weapons and they
have to "Go In." ...Yeah something's not right here

This thread is picking up speed fast with 48 flags and a questionable source (if its true that it was pulled because it was made up)... Lets just be
careful before we toss out the whole "busted" word on here. Lets make sure to get all our ducks in a row before making huge accusations.

Martin Wood, for Associated Newspapers, said in a statement before the judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies: "My lady, on behalf of the defendant, I
confirm that the defendant offers its sincere apologies to the claimants for the damage and distress caused by the publication of these false
allegations, which had appeared on US websites.

"The defendant acknowledges that the emails in question were completely fabricated and that there is no question of any of the claimants being
involved – or even considering becoming involved – in the heinous actions to which the article referred. The defendant is pleased to set the
record straight."

The Daily Mail has apologised and paid £110,000 in libel damages to a London defence firm it wrongly linked with an alleged chemical weapons plot
in Syria.

Britam Defence Limited complained that an article on the Daily Mail's website Mail Online falsely accused two of its executives of conspiring in a
"nefarious and illegal plot" in the Middle Eastern state "for enormous financial reward".

The article quoted one email supposedly sent between two executives at the company which claimed to show that Britam had agreed to supply chemical
weapons to Homs for use in an attack. However, the emails turned out to be forged

You mean the one they faked, and were taken to court for and fined over for faking emails?

edit on 26-8-2013 by khimbar because: (no reason
given)

Adam Tudor, a solicitor at law firm Carter-Ruck, said on behalf on Britam: "The emails were not written or sent by the claimants (or by anyone at
Britam Defence Limited or anyone associated with them), and the illegal hacking of Britam Defence's website remains the subject of a criminal
investigation.

1. So they acknowledged that they had been hacked, but denied the emails were real. Which to believe when it's difficult for readers to prove one way
or another? At least we know the story was at least half true...they were hacked.
2. Maybe they had a bad lawyer, but these days, £110,000 settlement is probably only enough to cover the lawyer's fees.

How credible is the Daily Mail, normally? I honestly know nothing about it..But if they ARE considered credible, then let me get this straight...

Some forged/leaked emails came out about how the U.S. has been planning a chem attack all along, and this media outlet felt it important enough to
write an article about it, then forced to retract it once the claim was made that the emails were forged? I may not be picking this up all the way so
bear with me... but can you IMAGINE if something this potentially damming got out on CNN or something then suddenly it's like "oops, we were wrong".
??

I wonder just what sources they have over there at the daily mail.. I mean.. really? I'm not sold on the retraction, not at all. I'm not entirely sold
on this original article either cause it's just so...unbelievable. If there is any truth in this, then this is HUGE. I mean, revolutionary, time to
get rid of government HUGE. Of course I forget the state of apathy the American people are in.. If this could be confirmed I really do wonder if the
zombies would still support Obama after this! Sadly, I bet they would, how sick is that!

And this means what? I think a wise man once said all war is deception. But it seems its not like you have to work all that hard at it. Even if
Syria was rubble tomorrow people would forget about the whole thing in a day or two, and go back to there regular schedule, then just install some
guys in suits, or pay some famous or popular people to say this or that, and the people would believe it...eventually.

And if that does not work just have a bunch of people repeat the same things over and over for years and years if you have to. And eventually that
would become reality and truth by sole fact it just been said for ever that people dont even think about it but accept it practically raised with it.
So yes the deception is not really all that deceptive its more like willful blindspots. But what goes around comes around even if sometimes it takes
thousands of years for it to come back around.

Martin Wood, for Associated Newspapers, said in a statement before the judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies: "My lady, on behalf of the defendant, I
confirm that the defendant offers its sincere apologies to the claimants for the damage and distress caused by the publication of these false
allegations, which had appeared on US websites.

"The defendant acknowledges that the emails in question were completely fabricated and that there is no question of any of the claimants being
involved – or even considering becoming involved – in the heinous actions to which the article referred. The defendant is pleased to set the
record straight."

I saw this story rapidly develop in the morning news before it dropped out the news cycle almost immediately. It may have been something to do with
the fact the Director they interviewed looked and sounded decidedly uncomfortable and shifty - a really insincere story that was.

I'm not sure if getting it from a hacker proves it a hoax... it doesn't dis-prove it either I suppose but it seems the only type of person aside
from a high up whistle blower who could get that kind of info would be a hacker..

Originally posted by Wookiep
How credible is the Daily Mail, normally? I honestly know nothing about it..But if they ARE considered credible, then let me get this straight...

The daily mail is an extreme right wing tabloid newspaper with a reputation for being full of utter cr.p

Nobody with an IQ in double figures or more (!) would trust the daily mail.

Running a news agency is extremely competitive in this Internet age. I wouldn't be surprised they changed strategy to survive. It doesn't seem make
good business sense to run "false" stories and pay many settlements without getting anything substantial in return to cover the costs. Something is
definitely amiss with Daily Mail.

I think people should be more inclined to believe they publish credible stories and will sell themselves out to retract these stories. Well, as they
say, everybody has a price.

As the issue of chemical weapons in Syria occurred to ATS over the past months, this article - which I read in January- came to my mind.
So I had searched for it , to bring this to the table. But guess what, could not find it.
And now I know why........

It is significant to note here the emphasis on using Russian-made weapons, and Russian speaking agents, to be caught on tape. Integral to the plan is
not just presenting Assad as possessing the weapons, but inferring complicity of the Russians!
So not only does western intelligence through proxies such as Britam serve to plunge the Middle East into conflict,
TPTB are attempting to draw a world Superpower into conflict!!
Turmoil in the ME is now obviously the objective of the Western military might. But this story suggests a much larger plan: to delineate lines
and set the stage for a war of Global proportion.
Contrary to common diplomatic sense and cooperation, the West once again pushes the people of the planet with preemptive, unjustified, bully action.
And they seem to be anticipating, antagonizing, and creating very very deliberately, the conditions for a full on World War scenario.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.